NEWS
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/04/02/sot.obama.heckler.cnn
Obama gets heckled by some dork who “just wants a picture with the Senator.”
Lifehacker.com
Firefox 3 Beta 5 Now Available For Download
Cook Better with Your Microwave than Your Stove
Sweet. I rock the microwave. I reheat DiGiorno and get frozen burritos ready to jam.
gizmodo.com
Blu-ray Awareness Hits 60%…Hooray?
That’s way better than the percentage of people who know the casualty number in Iraq. See:
Public Is Less Aware of Iraq Casualties, Study Finds
Twenty-eight percent of the public is aware that nearly 4,000 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq over the past five years, while nearly half thinks the death tally is 3,000 or fewer and 23 percent think it is higher, according to an opinion survey released yesterday.”
sogoodblog.com
Burger King Releases Steakhouse Burger
Oh shit. That looks crazy. Looks like a review might be in the works.
g4tv.com
Game review: Obscure: the aftermath
Looks like a ton of digital cleavage. Imagine that.
Sphere: Related Content
03 Apr 2008 MC Spanky McGee
What’s far more disturbing than the anything involving the US military death toll is the lack of awareness that Americans have for the death toll amongst Iraqi civilians. First, nobody knows exactly how many civilians have died. As far back as three years ago, some estimates had the number at over 100,000. The US government had recognized over 54,000 deaths as of February 07. A February 07 poll found that the median response to questions about the # of Iraqi civilian deaths was around 10,000.
The point is that our civilians generally have no idea of how our governmental policy affects Iraqi civilians. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, most of those polled dismissed those deaths because of the perception that they were inflicted by “Iraqi” militants…something of a “they’re doing it to themselves” attitude. While I can understand why they have that perception, there’s another layer one must uncover to understand a situation like this. It’s the same layer that Republicans never get to when they argue that snow in May is proof that global warming doesn’t exist.
So this is not going to be popular (especially since I know that Pumpkin and Spanky like the meat), but in response to the BK BS:
http://www.meat.org/index-1.asp?c=MYMblogad1207
I actually would like to see a reasoned discussion (non-ad hominem, non-strawman) of this kind of thing and this kind of video.
I saw this video at the Taste of Chaos tour… pretty shocking. May be worth a post of it’s own with discussion.
That being said…within the last hour, I ate a bacon cheese chicken sandwich at the local Applebees. Does that make me less compassionate or just a dick? Or just husky?
Pumpkin, maybe those “or”s should be “and”s? No, I’m just messin’ with ya.
I sent the same thing to my parents and my dad (God love him) responded in part by saying:
“Please don’t send this type of thing anymore. It’s a real turn off! If one allows his thinking to become emotional about the process, he surely will be turned off by it.”
Now there is a bad argument: if you get emotional about seeing animals cruelly treated and killed so that you can eat a cheap Clown or King or Redheaded-daughter burger or etc., then you will be turned off by it. Therefore, if you want to keep eating your meat, don’t face or get emotional about all that.
Way to avoid the issue.
Actually, it’s a pretty good pragmatic argument: Do what you need to do to maintain the beliefs you want to hold. Of course, it demonstrates a lack of epistemic (and likely moral) irresponsibility, and probably indicates a kind of epistemic cowardice.
Additionally, appeals to emotion are considered fallacious. While they may serve a very important rhetorical and motivational purpose, these appeals are often not themselves good arguments. (Though they may be able to stand in as crucial premises in an argument.)
What I meant to say was “a lack of epistemic…REsponsibility.” Whoops.
And such videos are of course supposed to cause emotional reactions in people. But presumably in the animal rights case, the emotional is tied up with the moral, unlike say the emotional reaction that would be caused by a close-up of Dick Cheney’s crotch in a speedo–the later is definitely wrong, but not morally(?).
And I’m not sure my dad’s argument was meant to express a process whereby he can (pragmatically) continue to maintain certain beliefs. I think he knows (believes) that all the suffering of the animals is wrong; he just wants to keep it out of sight and out of mind.
But more to the point, and you make this point yourself, such an argument and such a way of acting (i.e., avoidance) is to ignore the ethical issue and, moreover, is itself ethically wrong.
While we’re making corrections: the above should have read “…Cheney’s crotch in a speedo–the laTTer…”
The question is, of course, whether or not your dad intentionally ignores evidence that would bring his belief about the wrongness of unnecessary suffering of animals to the forefront of his mind. Or is it just a protective mechanism that kicks in? This distinction might be the distinction that separates a morally culpable ignorance from a non-culpable one.